Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %? Why the fark are people not demanding the heads of the businessmen who make these changes, instead of demanding the heads of the people who are trying to help them(but are then used as an excuse for the businessmen to be worse people)?

Color me unsurprised. Back when I still had a full time job (I left it in June), we were told to start cutting part time and relief staff hours to 28 hours a week, maximum, in order to keep our numbers down for when the healthcare law stuff started. And this was at a not for profit 'Christian' place that provided care for adults with intellectual disabilities.It's one of several reasons I'm no longer working there. But, from ehat I heard from HR, a lot of businesses would be doing it to save money.

FTA:"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.

el_pilgrim:FTA:"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.

ACA treats employees working 30+ hours as full time and requires coverage for them.

Zombalupagus:Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

Better solution: make employer provided health insurance illegal.

I keep reading about how employers want to choose what kind of health insurance their employees are allowed to purchase. Apparently, some employers are even going to the Supreme Court based on some sort of insane legal theory that their employees are the legal property of their employer and that employers should get to make health care decisions for their employers.

Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.

el_pilgrim:FTA:"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.

30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.

el_pilgrim:FTA:"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.

The thing is that the vast majority of their retail employees are part time. It's not just one or two people that they hired just to fill in certain hours, it's pretty much their work force.

spunkymunky:Color me unsurprised. Back when I still had a full time job (I left it in June), we were told to start cutting part time and relief staff hours to 28 hours a week, maximum, in order to keep our numbers down for when the healthcare law stuff started. And this was at a not for profit 'Christian' place that provided care for adults with intellectual disabilities.It's one of several reasons I'm no longer working there. But, from ehat I heard from HR, a lot of businesses would be doing it to save money.

Elandriel:ACA treats employees working 30+ hours as full time and requires coverage for them.

Exactly. Sleazy corrupt companies like Staples have been getting away with pretending like full-time, 30+ hour a week employees were part time for years. I'm glad that their not allowed to be such evil dicks anymore.

The LarchZombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.Better solution: make employer provided health insurance illegal.I keep reading about how employers want to choose what kind of health insurance their employees are allowed to purchase. Apparently, some employers are even going to the Supreme Court based on some sort of insane legal theory that their employees are the legal property of their employer and that employers should get to make health care decisions for their employers.Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.

I see the Affordable Healthcare Act as an opportunity. While I would love to have a great job where I can visit a doctor with a $50 co-pay on the cheap, I think it is great that people can buy decent insurance without insane loopholes. No bullshiat preconditions, six month wait for specialists, or be denied for coverage if someone forgets something minor on their health insurance forms.

I could be self-employed or work a series of temp jobs and not have to worry about the 60 or 90 days rules. I am free from having to work one full time job dedicated to one employer.

For the "I've got mine" crowd angry that this could change their healthcare, there were events going on outside their window that were pretty insane.

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.

Ah yes, hard times. The big boss could only afford a 62 ft. yacht, and not that 64fter he really wanted. My sympathy lays in the smaller businesses, where sometimes you have to downsize to stay afloat, not in big business where they cut employees before they cut the bigwigs bonuses.

Seriously, why is this even news? It's been done by pretty much every big retailer at this point.

Because the apocalypse known as fatrbongodon'tcare has ushered in a new era when employers will screw over their employees to get out of paying for benefits. This has never happened before. It's an unprecedented sea change in the Marxist-Sharia dystopia Sarah Palin warned us of.

30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.

What are we in France? Since I got my first part-time job back in 1980 something full-time was 40 hours.

Elandriel:el_pilgrim: FTA:"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.

ACA treats employees working 30+ hours as full time and requires coverage for them.

It also means "More jobs!!" because more people will be working part-time. Cutting hours to 25 keeps employees well clear of the 30 hour break point and essentially guarantees no chance ever of encroaching into that magical overtime catagory, plus... go be poor and get your subsidized health care somewhere else, part-time peon.

But hey, unemployment numbers are down, am I right?

Or did people actually think the megacorps famous for utilizing cut rate labor wouldn't run the numbers on payroll + benefits, then come up with a more aggressive cost reduction strategy?

Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.

Because we have a for-profit healthcare system. So good health isn't seen as a right (which seems to fly in the face of the preamble to our constitution). It's set up to be a money making opportunity. In order to gain the privilege of the opportunity to purchase a chance at maintaining your health you must play a role in making corporations richer by being an employee.

Because that's how the republicans like it. Money reigns supreme and helping people without gaining money from it is wrong. At least as far as they're concerned.

As a social experiment I want the south to secede. That'll give the north to the liberals and the south to the conservatives. Each will have almost complete control over their newfound nations. Then I want to watch what happens over the next 50 years. It would be fascinating.

luxup:30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.

What are we in France? Since I got my first part-time job back in 1980 something full-time was 40 hours.

If we were in France, everyone would have health coverage and staples wouldn't feel compelled to destroy employee morale for a few dollars.